Factcheck Forgery for Dummies =)

Confirmation of Factcheck Forgery for Dummies =)


One: HDOH Confirmation #1: The 2006 amendment is not noted on Factcheck as required.

As explained here, The Hawaii Department of Health has indirectly but officially confirmed that Obama amended his birth certificate in late 2006, rendering his birth certificate legally invalid.

Regarding amendments to birth certificates, HRS 338-16 says:

§338-16  Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates.  (a)  Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.

     (b)  A summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for late filing or the alteration shall be endorsed on the certificates.


HDOH Administrative Rules list 2 kinds of birth certificates: standard (long-form) and abbreviated (COLB). Both kinds have to note amendments, as is illustrated by the examples here.

The Factcheck COLB says it was “filed” on Aug 8, 1961, which the HDOH says is the date it was given a number at the HDOH office. If so, the birth certificate was amended 45 years after it was “filed with the department of health” and according to HRS 338-16 must thus note the amendment, date of the amendment, and the evidence to support the amendment. The date of issuance on the Factcheck COLB is June 6, 2007, so if it truly came from the HDOH office it would have to have note of the 2006 amendment. It doesn’t, and neither does the COLB posted on Obama’s own campaign website. Both are thus indirectly yet officially confirmed as forgeries.

Two: HDOH Confirmation #2: The Factcheck COLB’s “date filed” and certificate number are incompatible.

As mentioned above, the HDOH has said that for Oahu births, the “date filed” has always meant the day the HDOH gave the birth certificate a number. As can be seen here, the Factcheck COLB has the information in the chart below. The bottom 2 lines give the information for Susan and Gretchen Nordyke:

Name         “Date Filed by Registrar”         Certificate Number

Barack Obama II (Factcheck COLB)         Aug 8, 1961            151-1961-010641

Susan Nordyke (born 2:12pm Aug 5)        Aug 11, 1961             151-61-010637

Gretchen Nordyke (born 2:17pm Aug 5)        Aug 11, 1961             151-61-010638

The Factcheck COLB claims to have been given a number 3 days earlier than the Nordyke certificates, and yet it has a higher (later) number than either of theirs.

At first, people tried to explain the discrepancy by saying that maybe the hospitals had pre-numbered birth certificates and the pile got out of order at the hospital, but the HDOH confirmed that only the HDOH office gave the certificate numbers.

And some tried to explain it by saying maybe the pile got out of order at the HDOH office. But the HDOH has said the number was given on the “date filed” so something that was numbered on Aug 8th wouldn’t still be in the pile to get mixed up with the certificates that were numbered 3 days later. What was numbered on Tuesday skipped ahead to number 641 and then what was numbered on Friday went back to 637 and 638.

Some suggested that the number was different on a COLB than on its long-form, so the discrepancies were because the Nordykes’ were long-forms and Factcheck’s a COLB. But an individual’s long-form and COLB have the same number.

The “date filed” and certificate number for the Factcheck COLB are not compatible, given the HDOH’s explanation for what “date filed” means and the numbers on the Nordyke certificates.

Three: Neil Abercrombie’s statements to Mike Evans
According to his recorded on-air comments to radio host Peter Boyles, when Hollywood insider reporter Mike Evans saw the Abercrombie interview that was published Jan 18th (see addendum) he called up the governor’s office to find out from his long-time friend what was actually going on. The next day, Jan 19th, he reported to radio stations all over the country what he had found out (there are reportedly at least 3 other recordings in addition to the 2 below where Evans made these claims).

In the recorded audio of “Austin’s Morning News” (transcript here ) he says,

“Yesterday I talked to Neil. Said that he searched everywhere using all of his power as governor, looking at Kapiolani Women and Children’s Hospital and Queens Medical Center, where children were born back in that day. And he said, “Mike, there is no Barack Obama cer, birth certificate…Well, the governor w, demanded to see it, went to the hospital, sent all of his people, a search warrant, and he could not get it. Uh, there, he’s really good friends to the President but he says, he thinks this could cause some problems during re-election…

I’ve known Neil for long (chuckles) long time and he really, he’s a left-wing nut. I mean, I love him, but uh, yeah, he was, he was, you’re exactly right. He was hoping this would get rid of this problem and that he would prove that he was born in the United States. Unfortunately it backfired on him.

In the recorded audio with KQRS – Minneapolis (transcript here ) he said:

Yesterday talking in Neil’s office, Neil says that he searched everywhere using his power as governor at the Kapiolani Women’s and Children’s Hospital and Queen’s Hospital, the only place that kids were born in Hawaii back when Barack was born, … there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii…Absolutely no proof, at all, that he was born in Hawaii…Now he went out, he LOVES Obama. I mean he purposely did this to get rid of that, that question. Now, got some egg in the face. I mean now he admits publically that there is no birth certificate…

And I asked him, I go, “Well, when do you remember when do you remember Barack? When’s your first memory?” And he goes, ‘I remember him playing, like, in the T-ball league.’ And I go, “Well, when he was, like, five or six.” And he goes, “Something like that.” And I go, “Well, what about before that?” And he goes, “Well, I don’t really remember him much before that.” which I thought was very odd…

I’m tellin’ ya’. Neil and I are buddies and during this whole inauguration when I was in Washington for those a ten days, I spent a lot of time with Neil, and anytime anybody would come up and bring this up, you’re right, Neil was almost militant about it. “I remember him as a kid. He’s from Hawaii, born and raised …” so, needless to say, I’m sure he was shocked more than anybody by this whole thing.

By the next week the story of what Mike Evans had said made it onto Drudge Report, and Rush Limbaugh opened his monologue with the story. The next day Evans gave an interview with Peter Boyles and Jerome Corsi, in which he said he had never claimed to speak with Abercrombie, but only his office – which is documentably false, as seen in the Austin recording above.

He said he “mis-spoke”, and the media totally dropped it, with Anderson Cooper, Bill O’Reilly, and David Gregory very shortly thereafter railing about how stupid “birthers” are because they won’t believe all the evidence out of Hawaii. They totally blew off the fact that what Mike Evans claimed was totally consistent with what Abercrombie had told the Star Advertiser columnist in published reports, and brings into very, very serious doubt whether there is any valid record that even COULD result in the COLB that Factcheck claimed was genuine.

An OB doctor has told me that hospitals don’t keep copies of birth certificates after they have been sent to the Vital Records Office. But someone who trains hospital personnel in record-keeping has told me that hospitals DO keep OB patient logs for a long, long time, and someone unrelated who wished to see those logs without permission from the patient would need a subpoena. In the published interview Abercrombie referred to an “investigation”, which could mean that he had commissioned an investigative committee with power to subpoena records from the hospitals. We don’t know. Mike Evans was going to talk to Abercrombie to clarify some things but last I knew Abercrombie was not answering any questions.

What we do know is that the place to look for a legally valid birth certificate is in the Vital Records Office, and the only reason for Abercrombie to go looking in either the hospitals or the State Archive is if there was nothing legally valid in the Vital Records Office.

Abercrombie’s communications to the columnist and to Mike Evans confirm that there is no legally valid birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii, and the HDOH COULD NOT HAVE printed the COLB that is shown on either Factcheck or Obama’s own campaign website.

Four: Tim Adams Confirmation – Affidavit of Statements from Election Office Supervisor

Former City and County of Honolulu Elections Division official, Tim Adams, has signed an affidavit swearing that:

Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government…


Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division further told me on multiple occasions that Hawaii State government officials had made inquiries about Sen. Obama’s birth records to officials at Queens Medical Center and Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu and that neither hospital had any record of Senator Obama having been born there, even though Governor Abercrombie is now asserting and various Hawaii government officials continue to assert Barack Obama, Jr. was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center on Aug 4, 1961.


During the course of my employment, I came to understand that for political reasons, various officials in the government of Hawaii, including then-Governor Linda Lingle and various officials of the Hawaii Department of Health, including Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the director of the Hawaii Department of Health, were making representations that Senator Obama was born in Hawaii, even though no government official in Hawaii could find a long-form birth certificate for Senator Obama that had been issued by a Hawaii hospital at the time of his birth…


During the course of my employment I was told by senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division to stop inquiring about Senator Obama’s Hawaii birth records, even though it was common knowledge among my fellow employees that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama.”


Conclusion: In view of all 4 confirmations (by Hawaii government officials) that the Factcheck COLB is in fact a forgery and has been known as a forgery by HDOH personnel for quite some time, Tim Adams’ sworn statements ring very true. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery which could never have been produced by the HDOH because there is no legally valid birth record for Obama in Hawaii – a fact which the HDOH has furiously sought to hide, as evidenced by the corrupt and illegal behaviors documented elsewhere in this blog (see the “Government Corruption in HI” section here ).


The following is based on Abercrombie using technical terms, which he may not have been doing. He may have used the word “archives” as simply meaning the older vital records stored at the HDOH office, and the columnist misunderstood. Without direct quotes of what he actually said he found, it’s hard to say what he meant. Given the other evidence and Abercrombie’s implication in the interview – that what he’s found will not be enough to convince those with a “political agenda” – it would be reasonable to conclude that he did not find a long-form birth certificate in the archives. It can’t be proven that this is what he meant, so this information is offered not as proof of anything but only as support for the accuracy of Mike Evans’ original statements. Given what the columnist thought Abercrombie had said (“state archives”), further clarification and/or investigation is warranted, which is my major point.
 In late December 2010, HI Governor Neil Abercrombie came out with interviews to both the New York Times and the LA Times, saying that he was angered by “birthers” because anybody could ask him and he could tell them he was in Hawaii when Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital; he remembered Barack Obama Sr and his wife, Ann, bringing the child to social events. He said he was talking with his Attorney General and Health Director to find a way to release proof of Obama’s Hawaii birth, since “birthers” were “disrespecting” Obama’s parents and the office of the presidency, as well as Hawaiians in general as if being born in Hawaii doesn’t make a person a US citizen. Politically-motivated people, he said, were pushing “birther” bills in state legislatures, and it was time to put the story to rest.

Exactly 3 weeks later, in an interview given Jan 14th and published on Jan 18th by Richard Borreca, political columnist for the Star Advertiser, the following exchange was reported (emphasis mine):

Q: You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plans to release more information regarding President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. How is that coming?

A: I got a letter from someone the other day who was genuinely concerned about it; it is not all just political agenda. They were talking on Olelo last night about this; it has a political implication for 2012 that we simply cannot have.

(Abercrombie said there is a recording of the birth in the State Archives and he wants to use that.)

It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down …

…What I can do, and all I have ever said, is that I am going to see to it as governor that I can verify to anyone who is honest about it that this is the case.

If there is a political agenda then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president.

Notice the excerpting and parenthetical statement. It seems clear that Abercrombie told Borreca exactly what he found and Borreca chose to edit out those comments. What “recording of the birth” would there be, written down in the State Archives? According to the HDOH retention schedule, the only vital records authorized to be stored in the State Archive rather than at the Vital Records Office are


  1. Certificates of Hawaiian Birth and index to foreign birth that are at least 75 years old (see page 5)
  2. Certificates of Foreign Birth (VDR-11) See page 1 and note at the bottom the specific request that only VDR-11 Master Microfilm be stored at the State Archive. It should be noted also that the HDOH says they have no index to certificates of foreign birth – not even electronically. That means that there are either no certificates of foreign birth to be indexed, the HDOH includes foreign births in their standard index data, or they lied.


It’s not supposed to require an “investigation” to find records for a person with a legally valid birth certificate. It’s supposed to be a matter of finding it in the Vital Records Office – like former HDOH Director Fukino implied that she had done. If former Gov Lingle was able to order Fukino to look at Obama’s records then why did Abercrombie have to go to the State Archive to find anything? Because what Fukino found was also in the State Archive – in which case it was NOT a legally-valid record (either a long-form birth certificate resulting from a hospital birth, or legally-valid documentation of a home birth through affidavits and doctor’s examination and records).

In effect, the cartoon below is what the national media let Abercrombie get away with – not reporting or seemingly even grasping that if what Abercrombie said in a published report was true, there is no legally valid birth record for Obama in Hawaii, and Obama, Factcheck and the HDOH have been covering up a very public forgery all along.





  1. ksdb
    Posted March 6, 2011 at 6:42 am | Permalink | Reply

    Just a note about the Hawaii State Archives. The official archives itself tells us in several places they don’t keep any records there newer than 1929. Obviously Abs was caught off guard by the reporter’s question, so he made up a lie on the spot, except the reporter didn’t fact check, else he would have been busted immediately.

    BTW, are you still sending requests to the HI DOH?? Since Fukino is gone, seems like it’s worth retrying certain requests.

    • Posted March 6, 2011 at 1:48 pm | Permalink | Reply

      There might be a small discrepancy between what the State Archive says and the retention schedule. The HDOH retention schedule mentions that COHB’s must be at least 75 years old to be transferred to the State Archives but the other records it allows to be stored at the State Archives are Certificates of Foreign Birth, with no age limit mentioned. In fact, the records in question are listed as being from June 1987 and later.

      I just noticed that I’ve got a 137-page DOH retention schedule on my hard drive, most of which is not about the Vital Records Office/OHSM; in the interest of space I only posted here the parts which are about that office. So far there are 2 pages I missed (pp 17-18). On p 27 marriage license applications and evidence master negatives are to be stored at State Archives.

      Aha! Very sneaky. On page 31 it says that master microfilm for Records and Statistics Office (RSO) VR-1, VR-2, and VR-4 may be transferred to the State Archives, but only had the description of VR-4 attached to it (abortion records). From previous requests I recognized VR-1, because I had requested them and been told they don’t exist – the indices. VR-2 is the vital records. So the microfilms of the vital records may be kept at the State Archives. That would make it very important to know whether they are kept there regardless of age.

      Page 42 and thereabouts there are records for special health needs and handicapped children and infants entered into a family health program that are transferred to the State Archives after 5 years, but those are kept for a total of 30 years after the person’s last entry.

      Page 58 there’s a rural Oahu maternity project where maternity and infant records can be transferred to the State Archive after 10 years; the total retention period is at least 30 years but the retention was to be reevaluated in 1995.

      There are some leprosy and tuburculosis records transferred to the State Archive and kept permanently.

      Whew. Now I need to get the family and myself ready for church. This alters the picture though, because master negatives of vital records were authorized to be stored at the State Archive. Aagh. I need to go. I’ll have to sort this out later.

  2. Mike
    Posted March 7, 2011 at 12:05 am | Permalink | Reply

    Look at page 24 (pdf page 31) Appendix A.
    Hawaii is one of a handful of states with very centralized control of Birth records.

    Click to access oei-07-99-00570.pdf

    It would be unlikely they would get to out of synch with process.

  3. JohnC
    Posted March 10, 2011 at 1:10 am | Permalink | Reply

    Your argument that the HDOH confirmed that Obama amended his birth certificate by denying access to his “birth certificate or any related information” is plain laughable.

    Here’s a parallel scenario:

    You ask me to let you inspect my house and all of my secret Martian ray guns inside. I tell you that you aren’t entitled to see my house or any personal effects. By your logic, I have just admitted I have secret Martian ray guns.

    As for Obama’s certificate number, you’re missing one huge fact. The Obama campaign released the COLB with the certificate number showing BEFORE the Nordyke twins released their birth certificates. If the Obama campaign forged the number, it had to have been an incredibly lucky guess for the certificate number to be that close to the Nordykes.

    And of course the one thing that birth certificate conspiracy theorists have yet to explain is how two Hawaiian newspapers in 1961 ran Obama’s birth announcement when newspapers got such information from the HDOH in the first place.

    Birthers try to get around this by claiming that Stanley Dunham somehow obtained money to travel to Africa and then raced out of Kenya within hours of Obama’s birth so that she could somehow either deceive the HDOH or contact the newspapers themselves to print birth announcements.

    But, assuming there was evidence Dunham ever went to Kenya, which there isn’t, WHY would she try to fake Obama’s place of birth? She wasn’t an attorney, so there was no reason for her to believe Obama wouldn’t have been a U.S. citizen merely because he happened to be born out of the country to a U.S. citizen parent.

    Second, even if she did happen to know the obscure quirks of U.S. immigration law, there would have been no reason for her to do anything about it. Whether Obama was a U.S. citizen or not, he still could have lived in Hawaii with his mother, gone to a local school and lived a happy life. If necessary, he could have naturalized. She certainly evidenced no worry about her daughter Maya being born in Indonesia several years later.

    The only impact that Obama’s place of birth would have had would have been on his eligibility for the presidency. Two questions: (1) How would she have known that? (2) Even if she did, what reason did she have to think her son would run for President some day and have a chance in hell of winning? (3) Even if all the rest was true, how did she reach such a conclusion within mere hours of his birth, necessitating a rush journey from Kenya to Hawaii?

    When birthers can gave credible answers to these questions, then maybe we can talk conspiracy.

    • Posted March 10, 2011 at 2:41 am | Permalink | Reply

      John, everything you’ve mentioned has already been answered on this blog. It might be worth your time to look around a bit.

      There are laws and rules that apply to government offices. One of those is that they can’t deny access to a record that doesn’t exist. If they deny access, it exists. That’s in the OIP Rules and attorney OIP Opinion Letters. I’ve got those posted here.

      I’ve got a question for you on those birth announcements, which seem to be what you place all your stock in: Why were we told those images came from the Hawaii State Library when they documentably didn’t? See https://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/revised-article/

    • Posted March 10, 2011 at 3:36 am | Permalink | Reply

      There’s one other thing I can say, regarding how the Factcheck certificate number could be as close as it was. There is a particular child who was born precisely when Obama would like everybody to think he was born – and died the next day. That child is listed in the birth index, but the HDOH says they don’t have a birth certificate for that child.

      And when I requested to see UIPA requests asking for abbreviated copies of that child’s COLB, I was told there weren’t any records of anybody asking to see that. But I know now (from other requests I’ve made) that they should have asked me what requestor I wanted to know about – because they only file the requests under the name of the requestor. IOW, they wanted me to believe nobody had requested that record, when in reality they didn’t even have enough information to CHECK whether it had been requested – a fact they were required to tell me but chose not to. They WANTED me to believe that nobody had requested to see that record, even though they never even checked.

      There is DEFINITELY something screwy with that record if they say a BC doesn’t exist even though the name is in the birth index. And their quick, deceptive response was a little too quick, a little too easy, and WAY too deceptive.

      Want to make any bets as to whether Obama or his representative requested to see that child’s abbreviated COLB so they could steal that child’s certificate number?

      You do realize, don’t you, that the certificate number is required to be disclosed to the public because it was grandfathered in as discloseable when UIPA was passed? There is no lawful reason for them to be hiding Obama’s real BC number, just as there is no lawful reason for them to be hiding a non-certified COLB for him (which is REQUIRED to be disclosed to anybody who asks to see it, according to HDOH Administrative Rules and UIPA).

      Why are they hiding this stuff that is required to be disclosed?

      Why do they say they don’t have a birth certificate for a person who is listed right there on their birth index? The child is also listed in the death index. The death announcement was in both newspapers. What did they do to that child’s birth certificate, that the HDOH says it doesn’t exist?

      There’s a bunch of other stuff too, but you could start on those questions at least.

      • JohnC
        Posted March 10, 2011 at 4:06 am | Permalink

        “Want to make any bets as to whether Obama or his representative requested to see that child’s abbreviated COLB so they could steal that child’s certificate number?”

        I thought that the HDOH is in on the “conspiracy” – that’s the basis of your claim that the HDOH supposedly destroyed documents concerning Obama’s “amendment” to his birth certificate – and not a victim of a nefarious information request. You need to get your scenario straight.

        All of this hand-wringing and elaborate theorizing, however, is moot until someone comes up with a credible explanation as to how two birth announcements wound up in Honolulu newspapers with a week of Obama’s birth in August 1961.

        As far as I’m concerned, any doubt about the credibility of the information in the COLB is resolved by that information alone. No one has ever credibly presented evidence that such announcements were forgeries. If they were forgeries, someone could easily obtain a microfilm copy of those newspaper predating 2004 that omits them.

        In the complete absence of evidence that these announcements were not in fact run in August 1961, no one has yet come up with a plausible scenario as to WHY, let alone how, they would have been planted in those papers at that time in history.

        Bottom line: Your argument centers around whether bureaucrats are familiar with every law concerning disclosure of vital records, while mine goes to the very heart of whether there is any reason to believe the 1961 announcements stand for anything other than what they purport to stand for. I think my questions delve right to the question of the feasibility of the underlying birther hypothesis, while yours merely attempts to ascribe sinister motives to typical bureaucratic bungling.

      • Posted March 10, 2011 at 4:20 am | Permalink

        You answered none of my questions and failed to absorb any of the facts I presented. I’ sorry, but I don’t have time for you.

        Anybody who wants to deal with the facts is more than welcome, but I don’t have time for those who will not address facts.

        Why were we told those online images of the announcements were from the Hawaii State Library when it is now documented that they could not have been? Until you answer that question all your talk is just whistling past the graveyard. Do that if you like but I don’t have time to deal with somebody who won’t deal with the facts. Those images did not come from the Hawaii State Library. Where did they really come from, and why didn’t the people tell us where they really came from?

  4. JohnC
    Posted March 10, 2011 at 4:41 am | Permalink | Reply

    If the 1961 birth announcements are forgeries, that would blow everything wide open. I posit that birthers are afraid to dig around because of the fear that the announcements are indeed fully authentic. (You yourself have largely avoided this issue.) If they are authentic, birthers would have to introduce the further wrinkle of a conspiracy in 1961 that has no basis in fact or reasonably explainable motivation.

    Instead, we are treated to sideshows of conspiratorial plots by Hawaii officials and/or the Obama administration, the Democratic Party, “Obots” or whatever.

    Look, I’ll give you this much. Based on your obsession with Hawaii regulations, I’ll bet you know more about them than the bureaucrats you’re dealing with. But therein lies my point. You’re ascribing every response as if it were meticulously crafted to foil you while adhering to some imaginary legal standard of deniability – that’s giving them far too much credit.

    My questions are simple. If Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii – which is your implication – then where DO those announcements come from? And why? To date, nobody has attempted to answer those most basic questions of fact. Until someone can, I find the arcane details of your fixation tiresome and irrelevant.

    • Posted March 10, 2011 at 5:42 am | Permalink | Reply

      John, I have a lot more facts about those birth announcements than you have any idea of.

      My first point is this: those announcements did not come from the Hawaii State Library as we were told.

      Have you grasped that? Those announcement images are not what we were told they were. Somebody lied, flat-out.


      That is the START of this story. I could tell you a lot more but you’re not ready for it. You haven’t grasped fact #1: Starfelt, Infidel Granny, Koa, and the Prius Chat poster ALL said their images were from the microfilms at the Hawaii State Library. But I’ve proven that they weren’t. Who lied, and why? Why didn’t somebody just genuinely go to the Hawaii State Library, take copies of what was really there, and post that? We were told these people had done that but they hadn’t. Why lie to us about those images being from the HSL microfilms?

      And where did those images REALLY come from?

      You keep saying there’s no proof about the announcements being forgeries, but you refuse to address what I’ve proven using the very images that Starfelt, Whatreallyhappened, Koa, and the Prius Chat poster put online and the claims they made about them. The stories can’t be true. I’ve documented that. Either Starfelt lied, or the librarian she got those images from lied. Which is it? Do you want to know? How would you suggest we find out? Why would either Starfelt or the librarian lie in such a visible way, and why didn’t any of the “news agencies” bother to check out this blatant stuff?

      If you looked in the post where I document this stuff, you will see that the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin lists were NOT identical. There were 26 announcements in the Star-Bulletin that weren’t in the Advertiser. Why didn’t anybody in all this – all of them who claimed to see those microfilms personally – why didn’t anybody mention that the entire lists were not even CLOSE to being the same? Just the EXTRA announcements in the Star-Bulletin were TWICE the number of announcements from the Advertiser. That was the first thing both I and ladysforest noticed when we looked at the actual copies; no way would a person miss that.

      The lists being identical was cited as the way we could KNOW that the lists were from the Vital Records Office. But the people who made those claims supposedly saw the microfilms and KNEW the lists were not identical; why did they make that claim that was so easily proven incorrect? And why did the media not bother to check such a blatant, obvious inaccuracy? What does that blatant failure tell you about the trustworthiness of folks like Bill O’Reilly who swear up and down that they have checked this all out?

    • Posted March 11, 2011 at 2:06 am | Permalink | Reply

      Alert All: the address listed in the 1961 news-
      papers is fraud. It was the address of local Hawaii
      Professor Orlando Lefforge, wife Thelma, and son
      Daniel Lefforge, plus two adopted daughters. False
      data in a newspaper is a technical lie and totally misrepresents the exact residence. No tax data shows/nor zoning data shows that
      the K-Highway address was the address of Obama or
      Dunham. Total lies, total fraud. The newspapers
      NEVER verified the 1961 address. Pure & simple. JS
      PS/ Some now claim that old Toots Dunham lived
      there with Stanley Ann in the backyard shed
      & bathhouse. Seems unlikely. Need more data.

      • JohnC
        Posted March 11, 2011 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

        Let’s say for the sake of argument that the address listed in the 1961 announcements is a fraud. The question remains – why are there announcements in the first place?

        The very existence of the birth announcement at the very least proves that, within days of Obama’s birth, two Honolulu newspapers received what they determined was sufficient documentation of Obama’s birth.

        From here, you can make three arguments:

        (1) Obama was born in a Hawaiian hospital, and that documentation of this birth was provided through normal channels to the HDOH and then the Honolulu papers.

        (2) Obama was BROUGHT to a Hawaiian hospital, and that documentation of Obama’s birth as represented by his mother was provided through normal channels to the HDOH and then the Honolulu papers.

        (3) Obama was never brought to a hospital, and Stanley Dunham provided documentation directly to the newspapers.

        Those are the only three conceivable scenarios that would result in the announcements we see.

        So, what of them? Obviously scenario (1) is the least difficult to explain – even if Dunham misrepresented personal facts on any information she gave the hosptial.

        Scenarios (2) and (3), however, require some explaining. First, motivation. If a person is born in a hospital, the hospital takes care of the documentation – and the mother doesn’t have to think about it. But if the person is brought to the hospital for purposes of creating a record, that must mean the mother gave though to the need for having a record. But why?

        History indicates that Stanley Dunham was not an attorney. If she had been in Kenya while she were pregnant, should almost certainly would not have had access to an attorney with any detailed understanding of immigration laws – let alone any attorney schooled in U.S. law at all.

        Dunham certainly would not have guessed that a quirk in U.S. naturalization law, if strictly interpreted, would prevent a U.S. citizen mother from conveying her citizenship to her son if she were under age 19 and her husband was not a U.S. citizen. So there is absolutely no logical or rational reason to believe that Dunham would have had any concerns about the U.S. citizenship of her son.

        That leaves the question of why she would be concerned about the BIRTHPLACE of her U.S. citizen son. If Obama was a U.S. citizen at birth, where he was born would obviously not affect his rights in any way – except perhaps his ability to become President of the United States.

        But why would she have been concerned with that question in August 1961 to such an extent that she would race to Hawaii from Kenya to plant a phony birth announcement in the newspaper that few people, if any, would read?

        The above stands for the simple proposition that, if Obama were not actually born in a Hawaii hospital, there is no rational explanation for how that announcement wound up in multiple newspapers within a week of his birth. Period.

        We can argue until the cows come home about this anomaly or that deficiency, but until the above questions can be satisfactorily explained, I just can’t get excited over the stuff that Bz gets excited over.

      • Posted March 11, 2011 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

        That’s assuming the announcements ever WERE in the papers in 1961. If so, why did somebody lie to us about where those images came from? Provenance is critical to the genuineness of a record. You can’t waltz around that issue.

  5. JohnC
    Posted March 10, 2011 at 5:56 am | Permalink | Reply

    You’ve fallen into the “government is hiding this from me” mindset established by the COLB debate. But the microfilm issue is different. These microfilms are PUBLICLY available at libraries and colleges. If anyone is truly serious about proving the announcements as forgeries, we don’t need to resort to self-proclaimed experts picking apart every pixel or shade. (Given the effects of wear on microfilm and the relatively poor methods of physical reproduction, any analysis that does not involve the microfilm itself is of little value.)

    All anyone needs to do to demonstrate that one or both announcements is/are forgery/ies is simply find a microfilm that DOESN’T have the announcement. Period. Full stop. This can’t be hard – microfilm of the Star-Tribune and Advertiser have been collecting dust for decades. Open them up and have a look-see. No request to a secretive government bureaucrat is required.

    To me, this is a threshold question. As long as no one has proven the anouncements are not authentic, I just don’t find the drama of present-day information requests to be all that necessary ot compelling.

    • Posted March 10, 2011 at 6:06 am | Permalink | Reply

      Where? You tell me where these microfilms are supposedly gathering dust.

      John, you keep saying that “nobody has proven that the announcements are not authentic”, as if it’s a mantra you’re trying to hypnotize yourself with while you ignore point one of the evidence regarding the announcements: their provenance was lied about.

      If you found out that the Kenyan birth certificates that have surfaced were proven to not have come from the place the presenters said they came from, would you still consider anything about them to be authentic? Provenance is a key, key issue for knowing the authenticity of a document. If somebody lies about the provenance of a document you know there’s trouble on the horizon for the people who made those claims.

      If you can’t see that, then it truly is a waste of time to talk to you. You are avoiding any of the facts I’ve presented. Proof of the announcements being a forgery could hit you in the head and you’d still be saying, “Nobody has proven they’re forgeries. Nobody has proven they’re forgeries. Nobody has pro…….”

      • JohnC
        Posted March 12, 2011 at 1:07 am | Permalink

        “Where? You tell me where these microfilms are supposedly gathering dust.”

        I already have. To repeat:

        Honolulu Star-Bulletin holdings…


        Honolulu Advertiser holdings…


        There are literally dozens of locations across the country that have holdings of these papers for 1961. Moreover, the Library of Congress has a search engine that indicates other Hawaii publications from this time period exist in various holdings, publications which also may include birth announcements.

        “If you found out that the Kenyan birth certificates that have surfaced were proven to not have come from the place the presenters said they came from, would you still consider anything about them to be authentic?”

        Again, you’re confusing apples with oranges. The certificates surfaced on the internet. We do not have physical access to them, so we are left to speculate about their true nature. In such a context, we are left to judge the veracity of such documents on the basis of those who claim to have first-hand knowledge about them.

        The microfilms exist, as I have pointed out again, in multiple holdings across the country, available for anyone to examine for decades. Whatever one thinks about proving or disproving the COLB or supposed Kenyan birth certificates, this logic simply doesn’t apply to publicly-available microfilm.

        You can denigrate this point of view as a “mantra,” but if the microfilms are publicly available, all this effort speculating on what other people have said or represented about them seems like a monumental waste of time.

        I think the idea of some massive conspiracy to alter the publicly-available historical record is absurd – especially given that the supposed intent was not to erase some “smoking gun,” but to introduce obscure evidence into already widespread historical sources. Accordingly I think the onus is on those who propose or imply such an occurrence to make their case for such a conspiracy.

  6. JohnC
    Posted March 10, 2011 at 6:26 am | Permalink | Reply

    Here’s a direct challenge to you. The Star-Bulletin us available on microfilm for the year 1961 in a number of locations:


    I’ll bet you each and every one of the collections covering 1961 (1) well predates 2004, when Obama became a serious national figure, and (2) will include Obama’s birth announcement. Prove me wrong.

    And if you can’t, then explain their existence.

    And please don’t waste my time comparing this to images of purported Kenyan birth certificates floating around on the internet…

    • Posted March 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

      You can’t run before you learn to walk. You want to skip the walking stage. You are doing everything in your power to totally blow off the provenance of the images that have been out in the public for 2 1/2 years. If you won’t comprehend that issue you will never grasp anything.

      I can answer your questions. People who have seen me in other places know that I have already. But like a child throwing a tantrum, you are trying to change the subject. Why? Why won’t you address the FACT that we were told lies about those online images coming from the Hawaii State Library microfilms?

      Until you deal with that fact, I’m going to approve your posts but not respond to them because you are evading the issue. You are placing your entire trust in those images and are not swayed in any way be the now-documented FACT that the claimed provenance of them has been proven wrong. If you refuse to deal with that fact, then it’s pointless giving you any other facts – even though I have a bunch I could give you. You’re not ready for them and to be quite frank, the epistemology you’ve shown makes me question whether you would EVER be ready for them.

      Do you accept that we were lied to about where those images came from?

    • kj
      Posted March 10, 2011 at 4:26 pm | Permalink | Reply


      Although support for an Hawaiian birth, the birth announcements are not legal proof of birthplace.

      If you are interested in the microfilm birth announcements, ladys forest has done extensive research on same including addressing some of the points that you have raised.

      For the original BC why don’t you ask Abercrombie what he found: a “real” notation in a book in the State Archives?

      You raise many valid points. Perhaps you can answer the following simple and troubling questions. Why hasn’t Mr. Obama shown the world his original BC? Even when informed of the law by Hawaii State Lawyers, why has the DOH refused to provide Obama’s birth records suitably reacted?

      Personally I believe that Mr. Obama, the mixed race child of a rebellious and “fallen” teenage mother when mixed race children were rejected by all, and with “pioneering” breadwinner grandmother employed less than a year as an officer in a Honolulu bank, a job that could be terminated for a family scandal, was born somewhere in the Seattle area under the supervision of a relative or one of one Madeyln’s friends. Support for a Seattle area birth appeared during the campaign when several old high school associates recalled visits with Stanley Ann and two week old baby Barack. Travel so soon after childbirth was not impossible, but difficult and highly unlikely at that time. Madeyln could have filed the affidavit for a Honolulu home birth with the DOH and a newspaper announcement based on DOH lists would have appeared. Stanley Anne remained in Washington State to attend WU and was unable to complete the birth registration process in Hawaii::::thus no Hawaii long form BC from a Honolulu hospital. So why wasn’t the birth registered in Washington State? Or was it?

      • JohnC
        Posted March 11, 2011 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

        “Although support for an Hawaiian birth, the birth announcements are not legal proof of birthplace.”

        I never said they were, and obviously they are not. But they constitute all but definitive FACTUAL proof of where he was born, because there is simply no rational explanation for how these announcements came to be if he wasn’t actually born in Hawaii. Period.

        “Why hasn’t Mr. Obama shown the world his original BC?”

        He’s shown the world his Certification of Live Birth – which at the time he did so in 2008 was an unprecedent act by a major party candidate. Yet, instead of that gesture being seen for what it was, his critics have pounced upon it for what they (incorrectly) think it isn’t.

        As to why Obama doesn’t release the “long form” version of his birth certificate… He doesn’t need to. The fact that his COLB states he was born on Oahu is clear evidence of what the underlying source document says – after all by the law the COLB is a COPY of information from the source documents, just as is any COLB issued by the state. The only people who aren’t satisfied with this are those who believe that an official document from the State of Hawaii that states facts which are prima facie evidence of those facts in any court of law somehow doesn’t stand for which it clearly purports to stand. Obama doesn’t need to humiliate the dignity of the office of the presidency by endlessly catering to requests that have no legal or factual merit just because some people can’t accept what is out there for people to see.

        “Even when informed of the law by Hawaii State Lawyers, why has the DOH refused to provide Obama’s birth records suitably reacted?”

        The HDOH has evidently determined that adherence to Hawaii’s privacy laws is not compatible with releasing any information to non-interested persons. I can’t and won’t speak for how they run their shop.

        As for the Seattle birth theory, I have no opinion on it, but that makes the theory of Dunham going through all the effort to fake a Hawaiian birth all that more inexplicable.

      • Posted March 11, 2011 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

        Just a reminder: Three Hawaii officials have confirmed that there is no legally valid BC for Obama in Hawaii so the HDOH could not have printed the Factcheck COLB.

        And the provenance of the online birth announcement images has been proven false.

        The facts matter.

  7. JohnC
    Posted March 10, 2011 at 2:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

    We can debate where the online images come from, but as it turns out, such a debate is wholly unnecessary. This is perhaps the one single aspect of the debate over Obama’s birth that can be independently validated – and yet for some reason you seem to be content with arguing over someone else’s research.

    What if I were to agree that someone lied about where the images come from (though I don’t)? Why should that suffice as a resolution of the birth announcement issue?

    You say that you have answered my questions already? Are you saying that you’ve located microfilm of either the Star-Bulletin or the Advertiser that lacks the announcements depicted in the images you attack? If you have, why haven’t you reproduced your findings for the world to see? If you haven’t, don’t tell me you’ve answered my question.

  8. JohnC
    Posted March 11, 2011 at 7:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

    “Just a reminder: Three Hawaii officials have confirmed that there is no legally valid BC for Obama in Hawaii so the HDOH could not have printed the Factcheck COLB.”

    None of those individuals work in the HDOH or have any access to Obama’s birth records, so their claims are of dubious value.

    “And the provenance of the online birth announcement images has been proven false.”

    I love that word – “provenance.” That’s a way of getting around the fact that if someone has a problem with what other people claim about the announcements, the original microfilms can be independently accessed in numerous locations by the public.

    “The facts matter.”

    Indeed they do.

    • Posted March 11, 2011 at 7:49 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Janice Okubo works in the HDOH.
      Neil Abercrombie is the executive head of every agency in the Hawaii government.
      Tim Adams heard from his supervisors who told about government agencies searching the hospitals.

      I’m sad that you don’t understand the meaning of the word “provenance”. Those who study the authenticity of records know exactly what I’m talking about. If somebody lied to you about where the record came from it strongly suggests that something is fishy.

      • JohnC
        Posted March 11, 2011 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

        Until you can tell me that someone has physical evidence that the relevant microfilm has been altered or was created within the past few years, you don’t have anything on this issue.

        As an aside, I’ve worked extensively with microfilm, and I know exactly what worn microfilm looks like, and I know how the image gets further distorted when it’s printed. I’ve seen the microfilm images posted on the web, and I don’t see any artifacts or distortions that I haven’t seen a million times before. I’ve read the analysis by those who claim the images show signs of tampering, and based on my own experience over the years, I am utterly unpersuaded.

  9. JohnC
    Posted March 11, 2011 at 7:50 pm | Permalink | Reply

    “That’s assuming the announcements ever WERE in the papers in 1961. If so, why did somebody lie to us about where those images came from? Provenance is critical to the genuineness of a record. You can’t waltz around that issue.”

    Look, this charade can be ended by simply going to library and seeing for onesself – with no suspect intermediaries involves.

    There are no libraries near where I live that have microfilms for these papers for 1961, so I can’t personally do it, but there are plenty elsewhere in the U.S. that do. Certainly SOME of the birther manpower devoted to investigating every last privacy regulation in Hawaii could be directed into going to a library and have a look at the microfilm. As I’ve said before, this is one of the few birther “controversies” for which the underlying documentation is and has been fully available to the public.

    • Posted March 11, 2011 at 7:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

      John, as I said before, I have a lot of information you apparently don’t know about. I’m not keeping that information from you because I don’t have it but because you are not ready for it.

      Until you address why somebody lied about where those images came from, I can’t give you any more facts because you are not prepared to deal with facts. I have facts. Just as I wouldn’t feed a newborn a steak, I won’t feed you more facts when you’ve either choked on or spit out the ones I’ve already given you. You’re not ready for solid food. When you show me you can digest facts then I can give you more than what I’ve already given.

      • Posted March 11, 2011 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

        Did the Starfelt, Koa, and Prius Chat images come from the Hawaii State Library microfilms as claimed? Yes, or no?

      • JohnC
        Posted March 11, 2011 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

        Your condescension notwithstanding, you’re still trying to divert from the basic reality of the situation.

        You can inundate me with all the arguments you want about whether someone lied about the microfilm images – and to be perfectly honest, I really don’t care.

        Why not? Because if the microfilms can be independently verified, as indeed they can, then the he-said-she-said that you’re so caught up in ought to be relegated to the internet equivalent of the supermarket tabloids.

        Maybe later on, after the microfilm has been verified, we can ask why some people made the representations they did. But that’s a sideshow to the real issue.

      • Posted March 11, 2011 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

        There is no way to independently verify whether microfilms were in existence in 1961. The specific image on the film is not carbon-dated. There are people who have old microfilm for the express purpose of creating forgeries that can’t be detected as forgeries. Perfect forgeries can be made. It would be very rare for any signs of microfilm forgery to be readily noticeable.

        The only way you’d be able to know the difference between a genuine and a forgery is if the stories didn’t match up, or if you had stuff like scratches disappearing over time, etc. The anomalies are the only way you’d know if something was fishy.

        Well, we’ve got a huge anomaly because the stories don’t match up, and you say you don’t even care.

        Doesn’t matter how many times they screwed up the forgeries, the stories, etc. As long as they get one forgery that can’t be detected as such we can totally ignore all the others.

        That epistemology doesn’t fly with me. Where there’s smoke there’s fire. There is a reason somebody lied. If the images were all in line how they were supposed to be, there would be no need to lie. So the fact that they lied seriously calls into question whether things were how they were supposed to be. Even if there were perfect forgeries everywhere else that could never be proven otherwise, they would STILL not explain why those people lied. Their lies could be the only evidence that the microfilms existing now didn’t exist in 2008 when the online images popped up. And if they had existed in 1961 there would be no reason for somebody to not be able to go get a genuine copy in 2008 and NOT HAVE TO LIE ABOUT IT.

        I did what I said I wasn’t going to do. I’ve responded to your posts in an utter waste of time because your epistemology will not allow you to question the genuineness of the microfilms or images that have Obama’s name in it.

        Suppose I came up with an Advertiser microfilm that had the Nordyke twins’ announcement where Obama’s name is found on these other microfilms. How would you know which microfilm was genuine?

  10. JohnC
    Posted March 12, 2011 at 12:46 am | Permalink | Reply

    “There is no way to independently verify whether microfilms were in existence in 1961.”

    I’m not claiming that any particular reel of microfilm was in existence in 1961. The question is whether the microfilm in question predates the last decade, before anyone could have had any conceivable motivation to undertake some wide-scale effort to commit fraud in libraries and archives across the nation on behalf of Barack Obama.

    I’ve worked with microfilm before, and it’s pretty easy to tell which sets are older and more worn and which aren’t – and which reels have been recently replaced within that set.

    “Perfect forgeries can be made.”

    Perhaps. But made for and placed in dozens of libraries across the United States? I highly doubt that. That takes concerted effort by dozens of operatives, including technicians, research assistants, the libraries themselves and the manufacturers of the reels. Moreover, in this day and age, someone would become an instant celebrity if they claimed they participated in such an effort. If you’re willing to believe this sort of thing, suit yourself.

    As an aside, I simply have trouble imagining anyone organizing or participating in a nationwide “Operation Switch Ancient Microfilm.”

    Moreover, your logic is flawed. Why go through the effort to ADD an announcement that wasn’t there? If it’s not there, no harm done – people will just have to verify Obama’s birth some other way. But to actively go in and CREATE obscure evidence presents the possibility that, if not completely perfectly done, the ruse will be found out.

    “Well, we’ve got a huge anomaly because the stories don’t match up, and you say you don’t even care.”

    Yes, because they are irrelevant if you are determined to go straight to the source to determine the truth.

    “So the fact that they lied seriously calls into question whether things were how they were supposed to be.”

    Then that is only more reason to investigate all possible copies of the microfilm in question, and cross-check them for consistency.

    “I did what I said I wasn’t going to do. I’ve responded to your posts in an utter waste of time because your epistemology will not allow you to question the genuineness of the microfilms or images that have Obama’s name in it.”

    I’d be perfectly willing to question the genuineness of the microfilms – if someone had some hard proof that the microfilm reels themselves were tampered with. To date, no one who questions the microfilms has held one in his or her hand and pointed out any deficiencies, irregularities or discrepancies. So it’s all talk.

    “Suppose I came up with an Advertiser microfilm that had the Nordyke twins’ announcement where Obama’s name is found on these other microfilms. How would you know which microfilm was genuine?”

    If you were examining the original microfilm, I’d say you have a strong argument. If you’re looking at an internet image, I’d be skeptical until I could verify it on the original reel.

    From a logical and theoretical standpoint, I understand skepticism concerning the COLB on the basis that you don’t have access to the original (even though I don’t give much credence to many of the forgery arguments I’ve come across). But when you can visit the original microfilm itself, as is the case here, claims of skepticism make for interesting parlor talk, but not much else.

    • Posted March 12, 2011 at 12:53 am | Permalink | Reply

      You have no idea what we have and have not seen.

      If there was one microfilm roll that showed clear signs of tampering, what would you make of it?

      • JohnC
        Posted March 12, 2011 at 1:09 am | Permalink

        Then I’d say you’re on to something. That would make me very interested in check additional rolls for similar evidence of tampering.

      • Posted March 12, 2011 at 1:12 am | Permalink

        OK. What kind of evidence of tampering would you look for?

        BTW, there are 6 listed holdings for these particular dates, IIRC.

        If you had evidence of tampering, would the claims of how these images surfaced be more suspect to you?

  11. JohnC
    Posted March 12, 2011 at 1:44 am | Permalink | Reply

    “OK. What kind of evidence of tampering would you look for?”

    First, any examination must distinguish between signs of intentional tampering and merely aggressive use of the reel over the years. Heavy use will generally show more uniform wear, while one would expect intentional tampering would be limited to extremely limited portions of the reel.

    Having said that, I would check the surface of the reel for any holes, cuts, abrasions, slice marks, or discoloration that seem unnaturally congregated in one portion of the reel. Microfilm is sturdy in many ways, but when it is defaced it’s pretty easy to see.

    As for the contents of that reel itself, that becomes more difficult. Sometimes the original photographic reproduction of the underlying material is done in sloppy ways. Pages may be oriented away from straight up and down, and the original material photographed may already have been folded or exhibit excessive light or shadow. Those defects would have to be distinguished from those of the reel that contain the images. Certain defects that may appear to be in the original source material (i.e. tampering prior to photographic reproduction) may actually be the result of particularized wear or damage to the reel, and vice versa.

    When reels break (or get lost), the library may contact the manufacturer for a replacement. Since the suppliers of plastic reels change over time, often the replacement reels sent from the supplier have a different design and color from the originals, making them easier to spot from the original set.

    To the extent it there is any toss-up as to whether some aberration has a benign or nefarious explanation, I would cross-check with a copy of the reel at another library for similar features. If someone has physically altered the reel, those differences should be relatively easy to spot – that sort of thing is nearly impossible to duplicate with precision, especially when you’re dealing with small-scale material that requires magnification.

    “BTW, there are 6 listed holdings for these particular dates, IIRC.”

    That should hopefully provide for enough redundancy to explain any abormalities in any given reel.

    “If you had evidence of tampering, would the claims of how these images surfaced be more suspect to you?”


    • Posted March 12, 2011 at 2:11 am | Permalink | Reply

      Thank you, John. That’s very helpful.

      I apologize for a rough start. I was acting condescending before and I’m sorry. It’s so easy for me to misread people sometimes. I did that with you, and I hope you will forgive me.

  12. Tommy Thompson
    Posted March 13, 2011 at 4:09 am | Permalink | Reply

    Butter, I feel for you. I understand exactly what you’re trying to get across and I saw it in you first post. I’ve been trying to get people to understand that if the COLB is a fake then we have a problem. What reason would they have to fake a COLB if there wasn’t a problem. Why would they fake the announcements if there wasn’t a problem? Tommy

    • Posted March 13, 2011 at 11:50 am | Permalink | Reply


      The first point at which any genuine questions arose in my mind on this whole issue was when Berg filed his lawsuit and rather than simply showing what he said he had already put online, Obama chose to fight. My first response was, “So there’s really a ‘there’ there on this issue.” Until then I was very similar to those people who say, “Since other presidents haven’t had to show their BC why should this one? This is just spite.” It was when he had to resort to fighting rather than simply forking it over – holding his fist tight and refusing to show what was in it when asked if the chocolate on his face was from a forbidden candy bar in his hand – that the problem became visible.

      Where people have to lie, something is being covered up. I think most people can see that. And we’ve had NOTHING but lies on this issue – from the politicians, the lawyers, the government agencies, and the media.

  13. Posted March 14, 2011 at 11:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

    John C, are you by any chance on Free Republic? I have some things I’d like to ask you privately and Freepmail is a good way to do that. Or if it’s OK with you I could e-mail you from a secure server. I understand if you don’t want to converse. I just think I could learn a lot from your expertise and experience with microfilm and I want to make sure I understand things correctly.

    You can post with your response, and if you don’t want the response to be public I just won’t approve it for public display.

  14. Mike
    Posted March 15, 2011 at 12:21 am | Permalink | Reply

    Remember the timing of releasing the key items of discussion.

    – June 12, 2008: Daily KOS image (also on FTS)
    – July 23, 2008: Birth Announcements ‘found’
    – August 21, 2008: Factcheck photos of fake COLB released

    These are about one month apart. This is obviously speculation but that time frame would allow for a ‘throw it out there and see if that will do it’ period. Maybe these releases were planned in advanced but its hard to say. But it seems those controlling things were looking to feed the media and/or politicians enough meat to keep them at bay.

    With the original ‘scan’ of the COLB out, the newspaper announcements made sense. Birth Certificate (COLB) and newspaper announcements – the thinking was probably – “that should do it and keep everyone off our backs”.

    But the ‘scan’ did not clearly have the ‘raised seal’ so plan C seemed to be the release of photos taken during the actual creation of the fake COLB and taken inside of Obama campaign HQs.

    • Posted March 15, 2011 at 2:11 am | Permalink | Reply

      That makes sense. And the timing of when the photos were taken work amazingly well with the clean-up of the passport file also; seems like they created the fake right before the last breach of Obama’s passport file.

  15. Tommy Thompson
    Posted March 15, 2011 at 12:26 am | Permalink | Reply

    I am part of a group that was originally the obamacrimes forum at Phil Berg’s site. obamacrimes got hacked a few too many times so the group there set up our own private site. obama-soetoro-exposed. I’m sure all of us there appreciate the tremendous amount of work you have done. I have done a lot of my own research on the fake COLB almost to the point where I think I know every pixel in Barry’s COLB by name. LOL If you ever have any questions about his COLB I might be able to help. thanks, Tommy

    • Posted March 15, 2011 at 2:13 am | Permalink | Reply

      Ah, but I’ve been told I’m crazy if I say there’s hacking going on. lol

      Those of us who have done this kind of work all pretty much know that goes with the territory. My husband asks me why I’m surprised when my computer is attacked now, since it’s happened so many times. I tell him I’m not a bit surprised, just angry. lol

  16. Tommy Thompson
    Posted March 15, 2011 at 3:13 am | Permalink | Reply

    let me pose a scenario in the development of the COLB. This is after a ton of research and many fake COLBs that I’ve created for others including Peter Boyles. The original blank for the fake COLB was created by a blogger at the Daily Kos who bragged of his abilities. (I saw his photobucket site before it disappeared) either he or the Daily Kos filled out the information. Then it was posted online. However, it didn’t have the seal or the folds. That really puzzled me at first and it took about a year before it hit me. If I was going to create a fake COLB and had an original to use then I would not want to leave the seal or the folds on the “image”. Why not? I wouldn’t want a picture of a seal and picture of a fold…it would definitely look fake. It would be better to enter the info then print it out and THEN fold it and put a seal on it. I think the Daily Kos jumped the gun and posted the “image” without even realizing the COLB wasn’t ready. Fight the smears posted the same image…there’s a fingerprint anomilie that matches the one on the Daily Kos, FTS and Haye I.B. Aphorgerie from OpenDNA. Then people on the Internet started asking…where’s the seal and the folds? That’s when fatchance printed the “image” put a generic seal on it and then folded it and then took pictures to prove that it was real.

    • Posted March 15, 2011 at 3:20 am | Permalink | Reply

      What do you make of the date and time when the photos were taken, according to the Exif (?) data?

      • Tommy Thompson
        Posted March 15, 2011 at 3:29 am | Permalink

        according to the date stamp, which I did look at on OpenDNA’s image and FTS and Daily Kos, it went like this: The Daily Kos was first…then about an hour later SuperDNA posted his…I think FTS was much later…say a day or two or maybe even a week later. However, I think the time stamp only signifies when the image was posted and not when it was created.

      • Mike
        Posted March 15, 2011 at 11:12 am | Permalink


        I have looked at this in depth.

        The date of the time stamps is interesting.
        As you noted. 2 days before the last passport break-in. This is fairly well captured here:


        The total elapsed time of the photos is around 7 minutes. But two of the photos (#1 and #3) seem be inconsistent with this fast shooting sequence. This would imply the EXIF data was manipulated to make it appear the photos were all taken in one shot. I capture this issue here:

        Also, the originally posted (not the current re-compressed versions) photos 1, 2 and 3 are not original files out of the camera. They have been manipulated. Possibly to rotate them for web publishing since they are ‘portrait’ orientation.

        I believe the EXIF data was manipulated (any easy process and doable via free-ware) to ‘stitch together’ disjoint photos.

        The question would be – if someone was manipulating EXIF data why not fix it match the Factcheck story line? Maybe they were just sloppy.

        But that March date – right before the last passport break-in – is telling.

      • Posted March 15, 2011 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

        The sloppiness is the only way we can tell something’s not right with a lot of things. That same sloppiness is present in the newspaper announcement stories and images. I think they knew that most people don’t have the patience to sort it out, and the media would keep the story buried anyway. So they weren’t careful, and unless the people actually care come 2012, their calculation of how easy it would be to scam the American public may have been eerily accurate.

        As long as it’s only a teaspoon of arsenic among a feast of other things, most Americans will swallow it, and even ridicule those who warn them. “This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let’s not argue about who killed who.”

  17. Tommy Thompson
    Posted March 15, 2011 at 3:22 am | Permalink | Reply

    I forgot to mention that I can take a simple photo editing program and using a “cloning tool” erase anything on these COLBs and still leave the green background perfectly intact. I have examples I can post. One thing I haven’t mentioned to very many people is that I can see remnants of where something like a fold was erased at the top of the image posted at FTS and daily kos.

  18. ronaloka
    Posted April 18, 2011 at 1:48 am | Permalink | Reply

    excellent work and as it has been said up thread, the birth announcements in the newspaper do not mean he was born in hawaii… that he is born we can certainly see is true… his proud grandparents wanted to let everyone know the baby was born because soon a strange baby arrives with a difficult name to pronounce. newspaper announcements really have nothing to do with where he was born and someone could have made that point ages and ages ago. again thank you buttter. I know how much work it takes and I am here to help you if I can.

  19. Rona Badger
    Posted April 21, 2011 at 6:20 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Former Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, made this stunning revelation in an interview with NBC:

    Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files.

    Dr. Fukino emphasized: “It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that.” She reiterated that computer generated “certification of live birth” that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.

    Why wouldn’t Obama ask Dr. Fukino to tell him the name of the doctor? If the physician is living, Obama could have a statement released. If deceased, there are other ways to prove that this doctor was in a hospital delivering a baby on August 4, 1961 at 7:42 PM. That would solve that mystery.

    We would all like to know what else is on this document Dr. Fukino says she has inspected, and exactly what type of form it might be. We’ve seen examples of other “long form” birth certificates from Hawaii in the early 1960s. That form is called a “Certificate of Live Birth.” We’ve only seen Obama’s CERTIFICATION of Live Birth, or “short form.” Dr. Fukino implies that document is derived from information she saw on another document that is half typed and half handwritten and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama. That is really very straightforward stuff.

    If you believe this, when the argument is made that Obama has already provided us with his birth certificate, you must respond with that is NOT TRUE. There is additional information about his birth that was recorded on that form she saw that is not transferred to the Certification. Now getting back to the long form for a minute. On the long form used in Hawaii in 1963, field #11 asks: Birthplace (Island, State or Foreign Country). I pulled out my California Certificate of Live Birth (which is a validated certified, true copy of the document filed in the Office of the State Registrar of Vital Statistics). I was born in 1957. Field #5a asks for: PLACE OF BIRTH–NAME OF HOSPITAL. Subsequent fields ask for street address, city or town and county. The form also asks for the birthplace of my parents and their “color or race.” What is interesting to me is that Hawaii’s version of the same, at least in 1963, asks if you were born in a Foreign Country!

    • Posted April 21, 2011 at 6:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It’s a little confusing on the form, but it’s with the part about the mother’s usual residence that it mentions a foreign country – which is different than on the CDC’s recommended birth certificate, which only gives a place to enter the state and county that the mother usually resides in.

      Very interesting. Like they were expecting mothers residing in a foreign country to give their child a Hawaii birth certificate.

      The 1961 Hawaii long-form (Nordyke BC) can be seen at http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_y8ag4VGcCHo/TP38McJqQrI/AAAAAAAAKE8/nlSl8VNRMEo/s1600/NordykeBirthCertificate.jpg

      The CDC’s 1961 birth certificate is on page 228 of the PDF at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf

      • ksdb
        Posted April 22, 2011 at 5:10 am | Permalink

        I swear that Fukino is trying to give us clues that Obama is a fraud every time she goes public. Half-handwritten and half-typed??? The Nordyke certificate … filed by the hospital is not half-handwritten. The only thing that is handwritten are the signatures and a couple of the dates. Why would so much of Obama’s “doctor-signed” certificate by handwritten??

      • Posted April 22, 2011 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

        I think she was trying to cover for Abercrombie’s statement that a recording of Obama’s birth was “actually written down”.

        And the “properly numbered” was supposed to be a shot across my bow.

        All in all, it’s the same kind of legal fudging that Obama’s been doing all along.

        1) Fukino isn’t an official right now so her statements have no legal bearing.

        2) She is never quoted so there’s always the possibility of claiming the reporter misunderstood her.

        3) She never called the record a “birth certificate” (Isikoff was very careful to note that Hawaii officials call the long-form a “record of birth”, even though that’s not in anything written in either their rules, the law, or the certificates themselves).

        4) She never said that the record was legally valid.

        5) And the description she gave is vague enough that she could claim it was the signatures if they eventually show a forged long-form, or it could be for the legally-invalid record they’ve actually got, which would have to include affidavits or other written proof because of the amendment.

        It does suggest to me that they have a forged long-form in their office. The timing of Hawaii refusing to issue copies of long-forms as required by law and these statements by Fukino suggests to me that the current Health Director was appointed by Abercrombie to replace Neal Palafox because Palafox wouldn’t agree to allow the forged long-form to be placed in their office and to manipulate the computer records to make it appear authentic; the gal who’s in there now was willing to do that AND break the laws regarding certified copies of long-forms being issued upon request.

        If so it’s no wonder, then, that Abercrombie asked Palafox to resign, Abercrombie’s secretary lied by denying Abercrombie asked him to resign, Okubo lied by saying he resigned for personal reasons, and the AG refused to tell the truth that Palafox was not being investigated for billing fraud. And it’s no wonder that he was stubborn/honest enough to make it clear that he WAS asked to resign.

        The other thing Fukino’s interview here does is point the finger directly at Janice Okubo again. Okubo wasn’t supposed to have access to what is on Obama’s birth certificate. Yet Fukino claims that Okubo wanted to say something that would cover for Obama, show that he wasn’t born in Kenya. This contradicts the other 2 stories previously tried – Fukino’s initial statement that Lingle had done nothing different with Obama’s BC, followed by Lingle’s statement that she had told Fukino to look at the record and that Fukino had publicly stated that Obama was born at Kapiolani. Now we’ve got Okubo – the secretary – wanting Fukino to make a disclosure she had been claiming all along the laws wouldn’t allow her to make, and Fukino going along with it.

        They’ve had all this time to coordinate their stories, and yet their story has more holes in it than Obama’s played of golf since taking office. (OK, that’s a slight exaggeration. lol) If this was testimony on the witness stand all three of these gals – Fukino, Okubo, and Lingle – would be given a lie detector test.

        And that’s what we need right now. That, and to see all the embedded transaction logs for Obama’s alleged “record of birth”.

  20. ronaloka
    Posted April 22, 2011 at 7:12 am | Permalink | Reply

    Thank you for replying. I was wondering also why she used the word handwriting instead of signature, but I admit I have been reading too much in one sitting. Still, if ammendments were made as late as 2007…

  21. ronaloka
    Posted April 22, 2011 at 7:19 am | Permalink | Reply

    handwritten I mean to say, does suggest corrections in this situation; nothing is quite right somehow.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: